The mind boggles:
Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.
(h/t Democracy in America)
One knows, of course, that politicians will say nearly anything to get elected, and the Clintons are particularly hard-core campaigners. Still, the gall of bashing Obama on this after doing the very same thing, and the risk of getting caught, rather take the breath away.
And this is why I love Harper's team - with a couple staffers making an offhand comment to a group of reporters, they just managed to defuse the single most dangerous issue towards Canada in the political sphere of the most important nation on the planet. NAFTA is dead as an issue now, because the only two candidates to care have exactly zero credibility on it - and even if they try, McCain can make a huge amount of hay on the topic with the attack ad fodder he just got.
This surprises you? While many things you hear about the Clintons are false(usually crap from people like Drudge, O'Falafel or OxyCotin Man), they still will bend the rules or use low blows to get what they want. If you haven't figured out by now that both Hillary and Bill are egomaniacs I don't know what to tell you(and I am Democrat). They'll go as low as they need to win. Why do you think Hillary ran her campaign like a coronation? She thinks it is her time. Like Democratic voters owe her. Sorry, but I don't owe her squat. I don't owe some Nelson Rockefeller, Goldwater-girl anything.
Alsadius:
What are you talking about? You do realize campaigns are all about making promises you never keep, right? Did Hillary stop Bill from signing NAFTA? Didn't Obama just vote for a NAFTA like trade deal with Peru? Both are backed by corporate interets who they aren't gonna piss off. The only reason Harper is even in office is because the voters sent a message to the Liberal party.
I think it's a little early to tell exactly who has been dishonest and to what degree. It sounds like we're getting some contradictory information from the Canadians. I wouldn't be surprised if either or both Democrats are lying to the public about NAFTA and reassuring the Canadians on the sly, but I'm not sure we really know who did what, yet.
I have no love for Hillary but this is unfair.
She didn't start the Obama-Goolsbee-Canadian Embassy stuff. CTV did that and then Obama denied/lied about it and CTV doubled down and named names. If CTV had done that with Hillary instead of Obama, do you think for a second Obama would hestitate to bring it up as something reporters should ask about? Its the coverup not the crime type of thing? Do you really expect her to say it's no big deal because I did that too?
Two things to remember:
first,
Clinton lies = dog bite man
Obama lies = man bites dog
Which do you thihk has more news value?
and second,
The 'Obama lies on nafta' story got play not because zealous American journalists dug and probed till they found it, but because Hillary's people pushed it relentlessly.
Obama/Axelrod have gotten used to getting the press to move on their stories with just a little push. They've relied on sycophantaic love from the press corps to make up for a reluctance to get cought pushing another "senator from Punjab' hit piece.
You can read Machiavelli for what happens to those who rely on love rather than fear to get what they want ...
You really want a U.S. President to rely on fear? If The Prince is your guide to good governance, we've got bigger issues than I feared.
Clinton lies = dog bite man; Obama lies = man bites dog; Which do you thihk has more news value?
What kind of man bites Armor Hot Dogs?
Try actually following the news, folks, and not just swallowing whole your favorite candidate's campaign spin.
This (that the Clinton campaign may have given the same assurances to the Canadian government as the Obama campaign) was reported in the VERY FIRST CTV REPORT on the issue. The Clinton campaign immediately denied it and asked CTV to publish the name of anyone connected with their campaign who they found to have made such a communication. Further investigation did not bear this assertion put (about the Clinton campaign). But, it did uncover the name of the Obama advisor who had made assurances to the Canadian ambassador and the memo supporting that fact.
Mr. Brodie in his initial statement appears to simply have been mistaken about which campaign had provided the assurances.
There may be lots of reasons to not vote for Clinton. But the naive notion that Mr. Obama is more honest and less political -- or less willing to "do anything" (including smearing her with a accusation that has already been disproved) to win -- is not among them.
No, really? I thought they both were suddenly, incredibly serious about NAFTA, and that their out-of-the-blue campaigning on it was only coincidental to the Ohio primary. My illusions are shattered. There is no love any more. Life is meaningless.
Seriously, to the people who actually bought that crap...please. Just...there are no words.
I'm just a down home country girl with cable TV and a computer...BUT, didn't Obama go one and on about there being NO cantact, and then had to backtrack really quick when he was proved wrong? Mr. I'm "above it all" was lying through his pearly whites, pure and simple. What was Goolsby doing, in the middle of a breathlessly serious primary campaign, taking a little "tour" of the Canadian embassy??? Musta been a "whispering tour."
Puhleeze, my momma didn't raise a fool.
Hillary Clinton, is Dick Nixon in a pantsuit. And, when the only consequence for any and everything Bill and Hillary Clinton do, is more money and varying degrees of political success, well go figure: http://theseedsof9-11.com
When will someone in the media actually do the research (or find credible sources who have done the work) about whether NAFTA has hurt Ohio as so many assume?
I know the hypocrisy thing is an important issue to pursue, but I haven't seen anyone do the work about the underlining issue.
Rand,
The following article by Dan Griswold in the Wall Street Journal may be of some interest to you. It's pretty informative on NAFTA and the hows and whys in Ohio.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120432883739204247.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
mary:
This (that the Clinton campaign may have given the same assurances to the Canadian government as the Obama campaign) was reported in the VERY FIRST CTV REPORT on the issue. The Clinton campaign immediately denied it and asked CTV to publish the name of anyone connected with their campaign who they found to have made such a communication. Further investigation did not bear this assertion put (about the Clinton campaign). But, it did uncover the name of the Obama advisor who had made assurances to the Canadian ambassador and the memo supporting that fact.
Mr. Brodie in his initial statement appears to simply have been mistaken about which campaign had provided the assurances.
Hm.
Megan McArdle: If the above is true, would you post an update/clarification to the existing item?
anony-mouse,
Hot dogs! Armour Hot Dogs! What kind of kids eat Armour hot dogs?
Fat kids, skinny kids, kids that climb on rocks,
Tough kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox love hot dogs,
Armour hot dogs,
The dogs kids love to bite
A question from Mexico City: does anyone have a theory as to why neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaign took the trouble to reassure the Mexican government, along with its Canadian counterpart, that anti-NAFTA tirades were not to be taken seriously? Are we truly that unimportant? Or maybe reassurances also came our way but our diplomats were either more discrete or less wily than their Canadian colleagues?
Another Hillary Clinton liability is that both she and Bill live lives of constant crisis, and both seem hell bent on sharing. No matter how venal the Clinton’s politics, how distasteful their personal lives, or how desperate the situation, it’s always in need of an audience. Adrenaline is always flowing. Whatever else it may be, it’s also a pastime for the idle rich. Nobody who functions on a daily basis could live like the Clintons. So, the current primary is a preview, a sneak peek into what the new White House reality show would look like. In a way there’s something oddly seductive about watching the same old Clinton players return to the White House for an action packed sequel. It’ll be quite a season, all the old scandals making way for the new. But, are the Clintons the inevitable fact of life, they would have us believe? Or, in the words of Ann Coulter isn’t it, “time for you to denounce and reject Bill [and Hillary] Clinton:” http://theseedsof9-11.com
I agree completely. Why isn't this bigger news??
Alejandro Hope: A question from Mexico City: does anyone have a theory as to why neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaign took the trouble to reassure the Mexican government, along with its Canadian counterpart, that anti-NAFTA tirades were not to be taken seriously? Are we truly that unimportant?
Because complaints about NAFTA are actually complaints about Mexico -- people down there work too hard and too cheap. Can anyone keep a straight face while arguing that the labor and environmental standards in *Canada* are too low?
'Obama lies on nafta'
I'm inclined to cut Obama a little slack on the charge of 'lying' -- I'm prepared to believe that Goolsbee spoke to [Canadian guy] on his own, without direction or prior knowledge of the Obama campaign, and that their original denial of the contact was simply insufficiently-informed, rather than a deliberate misstatement of the facts. It'd help if they would own up to that, of course.
However, I think if you read that article more closely, and the New York Times article on the situation, they both seem to imply that the Canadian politician in question may have misspoke when he said that Clinton's campaign had reassured Canada. At least, the subsequent CTV investigation found only Obama, not Clinton. His comment about Clinton was before the news stories about Obama came out. From the NYT story:
Mary:
"This (that the Clinton campaign may have given the same assurances to the Canadian government as the Obama campaign) was reported in the VERY FIRST CTV REPORT on the issue."
BP Beckley:
"If the above is true..."
It appears to be. Not sure if this was the FIRST CTV story, but it definitely is one of the earlier ones. The focus was on Obama, but the similar accusation against Clinton, and her campaign's denial, was mentioned.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227
(Sorry for the cut-and-paste link. No HTML skillz.)
“Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!”
-Hillary Clinton, 2000
Truth is, Hillary Clinton lies. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's list of lies will provide journalistic fodder for decades. However, thanks to DNA, Internet, and other technologies, many of their misdeeds have come to light, with more on the way. Although the Clintons continue to lie, thank goodness for that. She’s going to get caught; just you wait and see: http://theseedsof9-11.com